As Election Day looms, what Trump and Harris presidencies will (and won’t) mean for defense

WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, Americans will head to the polls to cast a vote for either Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump in an election where national security has taken a backseat to domestic issues like the economy, immigration and abortion rights.

Neither Harris nor Trump have provided details on their defense priorities and the budget it will take to bring them to fruition. But both have spent four years in the White House, leaving plenty of clues as to how they could lead the most powerful military in the world.

And while analysts told Breaking Defense a Trump administration would likely be a more unpredictable one on defense policy compared to a relative continuation of Biden administration priorities under Harris, they also said that equally, if not more important, will be whichever party controls the houses of Congress where the defense budget is crafted.

“We have a much wider range of uncertainty when it comes to Trump,” said Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert with the American Enterprise Institute. “Under Trump, we could see a huge shift in strategy to become much more isolationist, which could end up bringing major changes in the defense budget and a drastic reduction in force structure.”

At the same time, Harrison added, “the makeup of Congress, and specifically the makeup of the House, I think will actually matter much more to the future of the defense budget than whoever the president is.”

Meanwhile, public comments by industry executives suggest they’re confident the demand signal for their products will remain strong, no matter what happens next week.

With four days until America votes on its next leader, here are the key factors at play.

For Trump, Uncertainties And International Skepticism

The Republican platform includes a promise to “prevent World War Three, restore peace in Europe and in the Middle East, and build a great Iron Dome missile defense shield over our entire country.” Throughout the campaign trail, Trump has reiterated those statements, potentially setting the stage for greater missile defense investments. 

At the same time, he has questioned whether the US should remain in NATO, a longtime point of skepticism for the former president, who has hammered alliance members for failing to live up to the 2 percent GDP commitment for defense spending.

Trump has also signaled that he would oppose further military aid for Ukraine unless it enters peace talks, and stated in September that Ukraine should have made “concessions” to Russia to avoid war, according to the Associated Press. 

RELATED: Zelensky implores US to continue aid for Ukraine amid election uncertainty 

During a rally at Madison Square Gardens on Sunday, Trump said he would strengthen and modernize the military, reiterating an old 2020 claim that he had “rebuilt our military in total.”

But Harrison said those comments are somewhat contradictory, leaving it unclear how much defense funding Trump believes is actually needed.

“If you’ve got all new equipment, why do you need to procure anything else?” Harrison said. “Of course, it’s laughably untrue what he said. But what if he actually believes it?”

While Trump’s first term brought rising budgets and a renewed focus on China to the Pentagon, Trump himself was sometimes a turbulent influence on the department, with moments that included personally involving himself in contract negotiations for the F-35 and Air Force One, and unilaterally promising to cut the defense budget, only to reverse course and boost the budget after meeting with key defense leaders. 

That volatility makes it hard to know whether Trump is serious when he talks about leaving NATO or signaling that he could revoke support for Ukraine, analysts said.

“Maybe none of this happens. That is one view that, ‘Oh, this is just rhetoric,’” said Byron Callan of Capital Alpha Partners. “But I think that there would be a pretty profound period of uncertainty until those answers are known.”

Roman Schweizer, a defense analyst with TD Cowen, was optimistic about defense investments under a Trump presidency, characterizing the Republican platform as “very supportive of defense.” 

He added that prominent national security Republicans in Congress and within the administration would likely be supportive of increasing the base budget, though they may be less likely to approve supplemental spending like the foreign aid bill passed last spring, which approved additional funds for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and key US defense industrial base priorities.

However, even if the Trump administration is broadly supportive of defense spending, other campaign priorities could have negative impacts on the defense industry, Callan said. For instance, plans to enact a 20 percent tariff on all imported goods could result in financial pressure on defense contracts.

Another complication could be the potential creation of a new organization, the Department of Government Efficiency, centered on reducing federal spending, Callan said. Trump has said he would tap SpaceX founder Elon Musk to lead the new department, and Musk said on Sunday he believed he could cut at least $2 trillion from the $7.3 trillion federal budget requested for FY25.

“When you start hearing those numbers get thrown around, it’s like, if you think defense is going to be rising with a $2 trillion cut, it’s not going to happen,” Callan said. “Not that I think a $2 trillion cut is likely, but just this period of uncertainty about, well, what’s going to happen?”

For Harris, A Potential Biden 2.0 Pentagon

Analysts agreed that a Harris victory would likely bring a fair amount of continuity with the Biden administration in terms of both policy and personnel, should the new administration retain some Pentagon leaders like Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, who has expressed interest in serving under Harris.

During her speech at the Democratic National Convention, Harris said she would ensure the United States retains “the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,” and that the nation wins the technological race against China in areas like space and artificial intelligence. 

Unlike Trump, she has vowed to “stand strong with Ukraine and our NATO allies,” signaling she would seek further military aid for Ukraine going forward. And while Harris condemned the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, she said she would “always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself,” confirming that she will also continue military aid for Israel.

Still, that doesn’t mean a Harris presidency would mean a gold rush for defense contractors, Harrison said. His prevailing assumption is that a Harris administration would prioritize domestic spending, leading to defense budgets that are “basically flat with inflation or maybe slight real growth.”

“The only way I would see significant defense budget growth in the Harris administration is if it is part of a deal with congressional Republicans to get through some of her priorities on the non-defense side of the budget,” he said.

Schweizer said the single best scenario for defense contractors is a Harris win, coupled with a Democratic House and Republican Senate. That permutation of what he called the “congressional Rubik’s cube” couples Harris’s likely support for Ukraine and Israel with a pro-defense Senate and — most importantly —  a House where the far-right Freedom Caucus would have little power to stymie military aid for supplemental spending, he said.

The worst-case scenario, according to Harrison, is a narrow Republican majority in the House, “because the Freedom Caucus will continue to hold defense hostage to try to give more spending cuts overall,” he said.

‘Trading On Results’

Although defense companies announced third quarter results in late October, just a couple weeks before Election Day, the subject of the next president largely flew under the radar during earnings calls with investors.

“Right now, the stocks are really trading on results,” Callan said. “They don’t appear to be looking beyond results and into election scenarios.”

Even when pressed, executives haven’t drawn a distinction between how a Harris or Trump presidency could impact defense spending — at least not publicly.

Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden said she didn’t expect a “significant difference” in defense spending between a Trump or Harris administration during an earnings call last month.

“What we have seen over time is that the defense budget more reflects the threat environment than any particular administration change, and so we fully expect that again, this time,” she said. “The national defense strategy has remained consistent over the past several years, in the last couple of administrations, and we believe that’s because it is responsive to the emerging threats around the globe and focused on both deterring and defending. And in that regard, it’s well aligned to the program portfolio that Northrop Grumman has.”

Similar sentiments have been shared by Frank St. John, Lockheed Martin’s chief operating officer. During an August interview with Breaking Defense, St. John said that the Pentagon is experiencing “a flat or a declining real purchasing power” relative to inflation, but added that it was too early to say how defense budget toplines could shape up over the next couple years.

“With regards to the election, we think that deterrence and deterrence capabilities are an enduring theme, regardless of which party is in the executive branch or who’s in control of Congress,” he said. “And so we think our programs are well supported in the budget, and we’re looking forward to working with whatever the new administration looks like.”

Other defense executives pointed to the uncertain political environment as a factor underlying more conservative projections about how business could fare in 2025 and beyond.  

Speaking to investors during an Oct. 19 earnings call, Leidos Chief Financial Officer Chris Cage said the company sees “growth momentum” in its defense unit but wants to be “cautious” about giving more exact financial guidance for 2025 until there is greater certainty on the outcome of the election and ongoing FY25 budget process.

“You look at the backdrop, we’re clearly in an election year. There is a risk of … an extended CR and some disruption,” he said. “If we get more clarity in the several months ahead, we’ll be in a better position to refine that point of view going into the early part of next year.”